Hereditary (2018, Ari Aster)

For better or worse, once the film proper starts, Hereditary doesn’t have a single wasted moment. Every little thing is important in the end, whether it’s how dead grandma wanted favorite grandchild Milly Shapiro to be a boy or Toni Collette’s justified fears of hereditary schizophrenia. I mean, the title’s Hereditary and she’s got a first act monologue about her brother suffering when he was in high school. And, wait, isn’t Collette’s son, played by Alex Wolff, about the right age for a similar ailment?

Maybe it’s Hereditary.

There are three big plot “twists” in the film, but writer and director Aster wants everyone on the lookout for more. Colin Stetson’s music sets them up, scene after scene. When the film’s building through the first and second acts, it seems like it’s heading somewhere unexpected. By the third act, it’s clear the film’s heading exactly where it said it was heading and why would anyone get distracted by the red herrings, especially since they usually involve dad Gabriel Byrne being suspicious and Byrne’s a red herring himself.

But the red herrings aren’t wasted moments. They’re in the film to confuse both the characters and the audience. It seems to work on the characters, though they have help from Aster intentionally casting doubt on them, but once Hereditary is on the horror movie rails it gets on, it never deviates. The third act’s rote, duplicating story beats from other films in the same sub-genre. It also upends the regular cast, meaning Hereditary doesn’t give Collette a great role. She gives a great performance, but it’s not a great role.

The film opens with its only superfluous moment—an obituary for dead grandma, introducing the characters by name and some general ground situation stuff. Collette’s eulogy covers the same material, so it’s just for mood, only then not. It’s just there to be ominous, not figure into a late-second-act character thread, like everything else in the film. It also stands out because it’s not visual, and director Aster is all about the visuals. Collette’s an acclaimed miniaturist who makes scenes from her tragic, terrifying life as dioramas for wealthy New Yorkers. The film shot in Utah, but there’s no specific location mentioned (if there’s a Mormon subtext besides them being secret Satanists, it’s too subtle).

Anyway.

Aster does a great job transitioning between the doll house rooms and the actual rooms of the house, maintaining the same narrative distance and style throughout. Hereditary’s a great-looking film, with cinematographer Pawel Pogorzelski and Aster always gently implying the uncanny. While Stetson’s music hammers in the uncanny. Besides the music (and maybe Jennifer Lame and Lucian Johnstown’s cuts), the film’s pieces are all subtle. Brought together, they’re anvils.

So while Collette’s trying to reconnect with daughter Shapiro, she’s also got this weird relationship with Wolff, which gets explained somewhere in the second act, but by then, it’s a little too late. The film obscures the ground situation for later impact; it ought to be able to cover for it, thanks to the quality of the filmmaking and then Collette and Wolff being terrific, but then they’re stuck with Byrne.

Byrne’s fine. It’s the part. He’s got no chemistry with any of the family members. Aster writes him as detached and obtuse, but he’s actually doting. It’s a weird fail. Fixing Byrne’s part might fix the movie. It also might not.

Shapiro’s good. It’s a slightly less thankless part than Byrne’s, but only slightly. Ditto Ann Dowd as Collette’s new friend from grief anonymous.

Hereditary looks and sounds great, with seventy percent of a phenomenal Collette showcase, but it is very much what it is and not an iota more.

Pig (2021, Michael Sarnoski)

Pig is an anti-noir. Writer and director Sarnoski sets it up as something of a neo-noir in the first act, with seemingly inscrutable modern-day hermit Nicolas Cage having to travel back to civilization and civilization being scared of him. And even though Cage’s adventure routes through shady settings, they’re just background to the actual journey and immaterial to the actual character. Pig is a character study—or a couple of them—in quirky (but not as quirky as it initially appears) wrapping. Sarnoski also delays the start of the character study to emphasize how unjustified expectation can affect a narrative; Pig does a great job of fulfilling promises to itself, not the audience.

Cage is a truffle farmer in rural Oregon. He lives within walking distance of a one-café town and driving distance of Portland, where rich foodies crave truffles. How else can they do artful, soulless winter menus; got to have truffles. His only contact with the outside world is his truffle dealer, overcompensating wiener Alex Wolff. Cage lives in a shack in the middle of the woods, Wolff brings him supplies in exchange for the truffles, which Cage finds with the help of his only friend, his truffle pig.

We get Cage’s name early, never get the pig’s, barely get Wolff’s. Names aren’t important for the protagonists specifically but also in general. Proper nouns are some of Pig’s noirish red herrings, seemingly significant but actually distractions from the main course.

After some adorable moments with the pig and Cage’s sorrowful solitary existence—Pig takes much of the first act to gradually establish; it certainly doesn’t appear they’re going to be able to go the character study route at the beginning. Cage and Sarnoski do a lot of work, the character development hurrying to make its appointment with the narrative when the action really gets going.

So soon after the pig’s established as cute and Cage’s existence (farming truffles for hipster foodies) is established as sad, bad guys kidnap the pig. Cage is going to need Wolff’s help getting her back because Wolff’s got a car.

Their rescue mission soon leads them to Portland, where Wolff is trying to establish himself as an elite restaurant ingredient supplier, and it turns out Cage has a unique history. Wolff’s very much under study, too, with Pig generally juxtaposing the two men, not specifically. There are faint echoes between the character development arcs, but universal ones, not ones precise to the characters. See, Cage has a very particular set of skills, skills he acquired over a very long career. And he’s going to have to use them, and it’s going to change everything for a very select group of people.

Now, Pig doesn’t spend much time with its supporting cast. One of Cage’s most crucial character revelation scenes is entirely in long shot, so the exposition has more significant effect than the actual acting. The delivery’s excellent and all, but it’s about the space he’s in and how he interacts with it. Sarnoski’s got good and better composition (there are occasional moments when it seems like cinematographer Patrick Scola trips and jiggles unintentionally—also ones where he’s intentionally jiggling), but Sarnoski always knows how to shoot the scene. The narrative distance is superb.

The primary supporting cast member is Adam Arkin. He’s great. He’s the Mr. Big in the anti-noir, and he’s got to do a significant shift real fast. Cage has to do a big shift gradually. Arkin gets a close-up to entirely change the course of the film.

David Knell and Darius Pierce are the other two principal supporting actors, both stops along Cage’s quest through his past. Knell’s outstanding in the first scene to really show off Cage’s skills, which is also where Pig’s very high aims start coming into view, and the film assuredly realizes them.

The whole show is not Cage. Wolff’s excellent too. Sarnoski’s direction is strong. The writing’s strong. But Cage could be the entire show. You’d need the script, but Cage could carry it without anyone else. The performance is mesmerizing start to finish. It gets richer as the film moves along and more details come out, but Cage is never changing, just revealing layer upon layer. He’s magnificent.

And Pig’s real good.

Bad Education (2019, Cory Finley)

Bad Education is the story of a junior in high school (Geraldine Viswanathan) uncovering the biggest school embezzlement case in United States history, something like $12 million dollars. Only it’s not Viswanathan’s movie. It’s Hugh Jackman’s movie, which makes sense because Hugh Jackman’s great in it. Not transcendent, but he’s really good. He can’t be transcendent because Finley’s direction and particularly Mike Makowsky’s script… it doesn’t let him be. Jackman’s got to be the star but can’t be the protagonist, can’t even be the main character, even though—in its final stumble—the film tries hard to force it for the postscript.

It’s disappointing, but the whole third act’s disappointing so, while maybe a surprise, not an unpredictable one.

Also a bigger star in the movie than Viswanathan is Allison Janney. She plays school district superintendent Jackman’s assistant superintendent. The one who handles all the money. Janney and Jackman are excellent together so it’s really too bad when they don’t get to have any more scenes together. Unlike everyone else Jackman plays off—school board president Ray Romano, accountant Jeremy Shamos, boyfriend (and former student, but we’ll get to this one in a bit) Rafael Casal, and then partner of thirty-three years Stephen Spinella, Jackman doesn’t bullshit Janney, so you get some insight into the character in their interactions. Because the rest of the time you’re just watching to see if Jackman’s going to turn out to be the sociopath he seems destined to turn out to be.

Plus… they make Janney sympathetic. She’s got genuine nice guy husband Ray Abruzzo looking out for her and if he loves her, she can’t be all bad. Right? Meanwhile, the film introduces Jackman being gay after him hooking up with former student Casal (who he coincidentally meets while at a conference). It makes Jackman look like a creepy closeted teacher—even giving him an apparently fake dead wife—when, in actuality, the Casal romance seems the most honest look we’re getting at Jackman. It’s humanizing, even as the movie presents manipulatively.

Compounding it being problematic is apparently it’s all fictitious; yes, the real guy was gay, yes, he had a long-term relationship, but he never hooked up with a student or faked having a dead wife. So… odd choice, bad choice, especially since when it doesn’t pan out at all it leaves Jackman’s only character development subplot unresolved.

Ditto some of the stuff about Jackman as educator, which might be hard to play—as it involves Viswanathan (Jackman’s encouragement is what gives her the self-confidence to dig as a school paper reporter)–and there’s a scene where Jackman kind of threatens Viswanathan and Finley doesn’t direct it well. Finley’s constantly showcasing Jackman when the attention should be somewhere else. It’s disappointing. Especially after it seems like Finley’s seemingly gotten past some of the problems and adjusted the narrative distance, only for him to fall back into the same techniques.

Good supporting performances from Shamos and Romano. Janney’s great. Not much of a part but she’s great. Hari Dhillon’s occasionally in it as Viswanathan’s dad. He’s good.

It’s simultaneously not creative enough and too creative while doing the docudrama thing. Finley gets good and better performances from the cast and his composition’s… fine, but his direction holds back the character development. And the script’s already got problems with it. Someone needs to be invested in the characters, not unfolding the story. Someone besides the actors.

Bad Education’s pretty good considering it’s all over the place.